On page 40 of the 139-page report by the B.C. government on the Surrey policing situation, there was an acknowledgement that, five years into this debate, the constant tension and uncertainty have taken a toll.
“Much of the [discourse] has depicted adversarial relationships, contradictory and/or disputed information, and the perception of indecisiveness by the City of Surrey,” said the report by the director of police services, which recommended — but did not order — Surrey keep its local police and get rid of the RCMP.
“This type of public and media discourse can erode public confidence.”
If you accept that statement, it’s hard to argue the news on Friday did much to repair that erosion.
Because after the duelling news conferences of Surrey Mayor Brenda Locke and Solicitor General Mike Farnworth, the future of Surrey’s policing is still clear as mud.
And the “adversarial relationships, contradictory and/or disputed information, and the perception of indecisiveness” has only increased.
Let’s go through each of those items.
Perception of indecisiveness
On Friday, both the province and city talked about the need for clarity in how Surrey is policed.
“The people of Surrey are frustrated by years of back and forth, and they should not have to pay the price for this confusion,” said Farnworth.
“The uncertainty around policing in Surrey has gone on too far and too long,” said Locke.
But ultimately, both sides waffled on their intentions.
The B.C. government determined that under the Police Act, they couldn’t force Surrey to choose a police force. Instead, they decided to create as many financial incentives as possible to get the city to change its mind — creating an opportunity cost for Surrey of more than $200 million between the two choices.
Locke responded by stating the money didn’t change her mind, saying at one point, “We have a choice, and we pick the RCMP.”
However, she also said council “will take time to review” the report and “act in the best interest of the citizens of Surrey.”
In other words, anything could still happen.
Disputed information
At the core of the conflict, at least from a policy perspective, is what the impact of Surrey going back to the RCMP would mean for the rest of the province.
The province claims Surrey’s plan is overly reliant on hiring RCMP officers from other communities that might be under-resourced, without a safe backup plan if they’re unable to convince Surrey Police Service members to switch over to the RCMP after they’re let go.
“Now is not the time to put police levels at risk,” said Farnworth, implying that Surrey’s RCMP restoration would come at the expense of many other communities facing crime and safety concerns at a time when there are 1,500 RCMP vacancies across the province.
Locke sharply rejected that framework.
“If the provincial government was serious about this from the get-go, they would have increased dramatically the funding to the Justice Institute,” she said, adding that the RCMP had assured her they could address the province’s concerns.
“I’m not concerned at all.”
Adversarial relationships
As for possible bad blood between the city and the province?
While Farnworth mostly took the high road in his comments on Friday, Locke made a number of statements that could easily be described as “adversarial,” to put it mildly.
“It was pretty disgraceful,” she said at one point, calling the report “half baked” and “disingenuous” and accusing the province of not understanding its second biggest city.
“I think the report was written by people in Victoria that don’t understand the lay of the land in Surrey,” she said.
One could view much of this as political theatre. There exists a path where Locke rails against the province for several more weeks but ultimately accepts their recommendation with some level of grumbling, as her predecessor McCallum did when it came to disputes with the province around ride-hailing and the timeline for a SkyTrain line to Langley.
But if not?
Surrey has two police forces that are openly feuding about jurisdictional issues in a city where public safety has long been a top concern, with the current framework costing an extra $8 million a month, with no end in sight.
In other words, a lot more than eroding public confidence could soon be at stake.